Truth, Objectivity and Popper

[Nikolai]

Is 'truth' objective or subjective? I cannot see how objectivity can exist without subjective leaps of faith. Objectivity is based on subjectivity, at least in a phenomenological sense, right?

I'd like to focus in on this topic by thinking about Popper. Popper's whole framework is based around objective truth. Does this mean that he has theoretically limted himself, and if so to what extent? And what are the implications for science?

 

[nosos]

What's truth? What's objective? What's subjective?

These questions need to be looked at before you can move on to whether truth is objective or subjective. They mean very different things to all sides.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'd like to focus in on this topic by thinking about Popper.

That would be boring for the rest of us.

 

[Nikolai]

That would be boring for the rest of us.

heh, fair enough!

 

[danny la rouge]

Couldn't resist. Anyway, as you were.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's truth? What's objective? What's subjective?

These questions need to be looked at before you can move on to whether truth is objective or subjective. They mean very different things to all sides.

Yep. If you don't define your terms then the result is often just wasted time and energy.

 

[Demosthenes]

As far as I can see the only being that can reasonably be said to have an objective viewpoint, is God.

So I think that means that if there's no god, objectivity is impossible.

But that certainly doesn't mean that truth is impossible, just that human truths are relative to an intersubjective context, I think.

I guess I'm presupposing that subjective means from a subject's viewpoint, and objective means either from all viewpoints or no viewpoint at all, if that's possible

Maybe these are contentious presuppositions, - but I'm not sure what the hell else objective and subjective are meant to mean.

 

[Nikolai]

The only being that can reasonably be said to have an objective viewpoint, is God.

Human truths are relative to an intersubjective context

Subjective means from a subject's viewpoint

Objective means either from all viewpoints or no viewpoint at all

Let's work with that

 

[8ball]

I feel lost and confused.

I think we need Gorski to sort this out for us.

 

[Felina]

As far as I can see the only being that can reasonably be said to have an objective viewpoint, is God.

So I think that means that if there's no god, objectivity is impossible.

But that certainly doesn't mean that truth is impossible, just that human truths are relative to an intersubjective context, I think.

I guess I'm presupposing that subjective means from a subject's viewpoint, and objective means either from all viewpoints or no viewpoint at all, if that's possible

Maybe these are contentious presuppositions, - but I'm not sure what the hell else objective and subjective are meant to mean.

Eh? That's if you believe in God!

Humans can be objective...

 

[Dillinger4]

I don't listen to Demosthenes anymore, myself.

 

[Felina]

'Truths' can always be refuted though, which can lead to the reformation of the theory and that was what was at the heart of Popper's theories: Things have to be falsifiable. Some things were truths years ago but now we have more accurate ideas about those things

Am I right in thinking Popper actually acknowledged the role of the subjective in arriving at a strong scientific theory?

Also, there is a distinction between truth and fact

 

[Nikolai]

Humans can be objective...

No, I can't possibly see how humans can be objective. Everything we do/think/rationalise and sense is pre-conditioned by our mind. All input and output to and from humans is distorted by our 'humaness'.

Popper thought the end of science was truth. He believed in truth. But such Popperian truth must be objective. He works within an objective framework only, by not taking into accout human subjectivity, I think at least - correct me if I'm wrong as I haven't read much Popper. My point is, I don't think 'humaness' or subjectivity is compatible with such objective truth. We are limited by our subjectivity. Which is all fine and well, we can still go on doing science.... except in Popperian theory - as his framework doesn't include human subjectivity. Does this make sense?!

 

[Aldebaran]

As far as I can see the only being that can reasonably be said to have an objective viewpoint, is God.

No. It's impossible because limiting God by framing God into a human perception.

There is no other truth than what any given person wants to believe it is and which is subjective by default.

salaam.

 

[fela fan]

As soon as you try and attach language to 'truth', it will disappear. The harder you try to define it, the futher away it slips.

No-one can tell you what 'truth' is, you can only know what it is when you experience it for yourself.

And so it has nothing to do with objectivity or subjectivity, which are human terms and concepts. The 'truth' of which you speak is far bigger than us mere humans, but being the arrogant species we are, we continue to strive to 'understand' this 'truth'.

When you're not looking, it'll slap you in the face! Then life changes.

 

[fela fan]

There is no other truth than what any given person wants to believe it is and which is subjective by default.

salaam.

Limited to the human world, your statement has merit.

But looking at life and our world in general, then there most definitely is 'truth'. It's just that it has nothing to do with humans per se. We are part of this 'truth', and it is part of us.

In fact it would be very fair to suggest that this 'truth' and this 'God' are one and the same thing. But again, our human arrogance has hijacked this 'God' concept and limited it to our own species.

Truth is what is and what happens.

 

[Aldebaran]

But looking at life and our world in general, then there most definitely is 'truth'. It's just that it has nothing to do with humans per se. We are part of this 'truth', and it is part of us.

Impossible. It is a human invented word that as such has no meaning but in a human context.

Truth is what is and what happens.

You can't know that for it is impossible to look beyond a human perception of things. I wish I could but it would drive me insane if I insisted on it.

salaam.

 

[fela fan]

Impossible. It is a human invented word that as such has no meaning but in a human context.



You can't know that for it is impossible to look beyond a human perception of things. I wish I could but it would drive me insane if I insisted on it.

salaam.

Well, yes, insisting on doing something that is impossible may well drive you mad!

But you ought to realise you’re only saying what’s impossible for you. I know it’s not impossible because I’ve done it. Of course it’s possible to look beyond human perception. And indeed, once you do, then you see what this ‘truth’ is. And I’ve been putting this word into inverted commas precisely because that is only what it is, just a word. But I think many humans recognise the concept behind the word, and part of that concept is in fact that something is higher than us, and that it’s unalterable by human perceptions. I think we want to tune into something that is ‘rock-steady’ if you like, that no other human can bend or twist.

I’ll state it again, for it really is what the truth is: and that is that what is, is, and what happens, happens. But like I said before, if you try and understand what ‘truth’ is with language, you’ll get nowhere! Language can help one uncover the concept behind it, but as you point out, stuck with human perceptions, and language, one cannot uncover what this ‘truth’ is. So, go beyond language, and go beyond your mind/brain and see if it slaps you in the face!

 

[Dillinger4]

All I can say here is 'LOL'.

 

[Aldebaran]

But you ought to realise you’re only saying what’s impossible for you. I know it’s not impossible because I’ve done it.

You can't have "done" it. All you have is your human perception and which is inherently limited. You cannot go around let alone outside and beyond this.

There is no reality but what your human brain can imagine and hence can accept there to be. From which inevitably follows that there is no "truth" but what your human brain can imagine and hence can accept there to be.
Furthermore: To imagine what you can't experience does not equal experiencing what you imagine, let alone that what you imagine to exist would therefore necessarily exist in a reality you can't experience and not even imagine.

salaam.

 

[8ball]

No-one can tell you what 'truth' is, you can only know what it is when you experience it for yourself.

Then you will realise it is not the spoon that bends, but yourself.

 

[Nikolai]

I know it’s not impossible because I’ve done it. Of course it’s possible to look beyond human perception. And indeed, once you do, then you see what this ‘truth’ is.

You claim to perceive beyond your own perception?

 

[gorski]

No. It's impossible because limiting God by framing God into a human perception.

There is no other truth than what any given person wants to believe it is and which is subjective by default.

salaam.

Alde, don't talk nonsense, please.

Nik is right! Methodologically speaking, we have to assume that only God can be "objective", as in the rest of us, Humans, are limited in a variety of ways, conditioned in a manifold of ways and hence...

You know you wanna be a Critical Theorist!!!

 

[fela fan]

You claim to perceive beyond your own perception?

No. I've gone beyond human perception, but not by perceiving this non-perception!

 

[fela fan]

You can't have "done" it. All you have is your human perception and which is inherently limited. You cannot go around let alone outside and beyond this.

There is no reality but what your human brain can imagine and hence can accept there to be. From which inevitably follows that there is no "truth" but what your human brain can imagine and hence can accept there to be.
Furthermore: To imagine what you can't experience does not equal experiencing what you imagine, let alone that what you imagine to exist would therefore necessarily exist in a reality you can't experience and not even imagine.

salaam.

I don't know how you can speak with such authority for somebody else! You seem so certain about what i can or can't do. The mistake you are making however is limiting experiences to the brain. Don't forget that we have the mind, the body, and the soul, and the latter is independent of the brain. It is the interconnector between oneself and the whole of existence, and is found outside the parameters of time and language, both human constructs.

Indeed, where you have time and language, you have human perceptions and you don't have 'truth'. But go beyond both, into the realms of the soul and existence, and 'truth' is uncovered.

For you to categorically deny what i have experienced is both rather strange and interesting! But either way, you are unnecessarily limiting yourself mate. Having enjoyed reading your posts i'm a wee bit surprised at this, but there you go.

 

[nino_savatte]

Tbh, I don't think that I want to think about Popper.

 

[8ball]

Arrr - there be acid casualties in these waters . . .

Weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen!!

 

[weltweit]

The only thing I know about Karl Popper, at least I think I know it, is that he said something like:

As expanded knowledge comes from the answering of questions, the most important thing we can do is focus on which questions we actually want answers to.

 

[fela fan]

The only thing I know about Karl Popper, at least I think I know it, is that he said something like:

As expanded knowledge comes from the answering of questions, the most important thing we can do is focus on which questions we actually want answers to.

Well, he went down the wrong road then.

Questions are great up to a point. But then we are left with the final question, the one that has perplexed philosophers down the ages, 'what is the meaning of life?'

The answer only comes when we drop the question. And that means that truth is only arrived at when all questions drop.

 

[weltweit]

Disagree, questions are great for expanding knowledge, indeed unless and until you know what it is you want to discover (in the form of a question) how can you go about approaching it?